On September 20, 2011, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued a notice determining to grant Respondent Cablevision Systems Corp.’s (“Cablevision”) petition for reconsideration of the Commission’s decision not to review the Initial Determination (“ID”) issued by ALJ E. James Gildea on May 20, 2011 finding a violation of Section 337 in Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-712).  The Commission further determined to terminate the investigation with a finding of no violation of Section 337.

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation are Verizon Communications Inc. and Verizon Services Corp. (collectively “Verizon”) and the Respondent is Cablevision.  In the ID, ALJ Gildea determined that a violation of Section 337 had occurred by Cablevision through its infringement of claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 6,381,748 (the ‘748 patent).  See our July 8, 2011 post for more details.  On July 21, 2011, the Commission determined not to review the ID.  See our July 26, 2011 post for more details.

According to the September 20 notice, on August 8, 2011, Cablevision filed a petition for reconsideration of the Commission’s determination not to review the ID.  In particular, Cablevision sought reconsideration of the Commission’s determination based on the August 2, 2011 entry of final judgment by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns Inc., No. 2:10-cv-248, and the previous ruling in that action that claim 13 of the ‘748 patent is invalid.  Verizon opposed Cablevision’s petition but the Commission Investigative Staff filed a response supporting the petition.

After examining the record of the investigation, the Commission determined to grant Cablevision’s petition for reconsideration and waive the requirement that any petition for reconsideration be filed within 14 days of the action taken.  Accordingly, the Commission determined to review the ID and, on review, to find that there has been no violation of Section 337 in the investigation based on the preclusive effects of the district court’s finding of invalidity.  The Commission further determined to terminate the investigation.  Lastly, the Commission stated that “[a] Commission opinion in support of this determination will be issued shortly.”